JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION FOR STAY

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the Court's April 18, 2014, status order, Plaintiffs Irish Help At Home LLC ("Irish Help At Home") and Bridget McDermott ("McDermott," and collectively with Irish Help At Home, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Rosemary Melville, Alexander Mayorkas, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and Jeh Johnson1 (collectively "Defendants," and collectively with Plaintiffs, the "Parties") stipulate as follows:

This is an immigration case in which Plaintiffs challenge the denial by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") of Plaintiffs' petition for an H-1B visa for its prospective employee, McDermott ("H-1B Petition").

The principal issue in this case is whether the certified administrative record ("CAR") supports USCIS's decision denying Plaintiffs' H-1B Petition. Plaintiffs contends that because the CAR does not support AAO's decision, the agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Defendants contend that the CAR supports the AAO's decision and the Court must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of its governing regulations. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1997). In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek an order directing Defendants to approve the H-1B Petition. Plaintiffs do not seek damages.

USCIS initially denied Plaintiffs' H-1B Petition on December 13, 2012. On March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action. On May 14, 2013, USCIS reopened the matter on its own motion. On September 27, 2013, USCIS again denied the H-1B Petition but certified the decision to USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") for review.

From October 2, 2013, to October 21, 2013, this matter was stayed due to a lapse in appropriations to the United States Department of Justice. (ECF Nos. 10, 12.)

On October 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint to include allegations concerning USCIS's second denial of the H-1B Petition. (ECF No. 13.) On November 12, 2013, Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint (ECF No. 14.) Meanwhile, the H-1B Petition remained pending before the AAO.

On February 5, 2014, the AAO issued a written ruling affirming USCIS's visa denial. On March 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the AAO decision so that Plaintiffs could submit additional evidence to the AAO, supplement the CAR, and seek an administrative remedy to their claims.

Because Plaintiffs' motion to reopen remains pending before the AAO, Plaintiffs have not filed a second amended complaint that includes allegations relating to the AAO's February 5, 2014, decision or to Plaintiffs' motion to reopen. Additionally, while the Parties believe that the Court can decide the entire case based on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Parties have not yet proposed a briefing schedule on cross-motions for summary judgment because the motion to reopen remains pending before the AAO.

To permit the AAO time to decide Plaintiffs' motion to reopen, the parties stipulate to an order imposing a forty-five day stay in this action. If the motion to reopen remains pending before the AAO at the end of the forty-five day stay, the parties will submit a supplemental status report at the conclusion of the forty-five day stay period. If the AAO has ruled on the motion to reopen before the conclusion of the forty-five day stay, the parties will submit, at the conclusion of the forty-five day stay period, a proposed schedule for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, for Defendants to file their answer and to provide Plaintiffs with a CAR, and for briefing on the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED